Skip to comments.Sending troops to Liberia could be a bridge too far
Posted on 07/09/2003 7:00:43 AM PDT by areafiftyone
The Bush administration is showing signs of all of the vices of successful foreign policies arrogance, overreaching, elitism, and messianic zeal in its decision to enter the Liberian quagmire.
Americans will gladly support their president when he attacks nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. We will even back him in a preemptive war against a country that might attack us. But when we start sending troops around the world to stabilize nations that, if left to disintegrate, might become breeding grounds for terror, it's a step too far for most Americans.
Why are we suddenly sending troops to Africa?
Is it because President Bush is touring the continent and wants to have something to offer the leaders he meets?
Is it in response to importuning from U.N General Secretary Kofi Annan or other world leaders who are asking for a quid-pro-quo for sending troops to Iraq?
Does the desire to satisfy global public opinion play a role?
Or do his nostrils smell oil in West Africa?
None of the above is justification for sending American troops to yet another foreign venue. Bush will need all the patience we can extend to him as he asks us to put up with troops dying in Iraq while other units fight in Afghanistan, the Philippines and other places where terrorism threatens. It is foolish to use up our tolerance with an adventure in Liberia.
Nor should Bush put his trust in limitations on the mission in Liberia. One good firefight and the United States is committed. Remember the reply of French Marshal Foch to the British general who asked, in 1914, what was the minimum British military contribution that could effectively assist France at the start of World War I.
One British soldier, he is reputed to have answered.
And we will see to it that he is killed.
Africa is a quagmire if ever there was one. The civil wars there are eternal and unending. They have no start and no finish. The cycles of revenge make any assessment of right and wrong, good or evil, almost naive.
It is not our fight, and we are unwise to, in the words of John Quincy Adams, go abroad in search of dragons to destroy.
Besides, the U.S. Army is not the only force in the world. We should let the African nations and European powers take the lead while we husband our resources to fight in heavy combat or where our presence alone can do the trick.
The growing potential of West Africa as a source of oil should not tempt us into military action. We must make sure never to do what the left accuses us of doing each day — trading blood for oil. The sudden interest in this oil-producing region might leave many skeptical and troubled.
Bush must remember that a large minority of Americans, on both the left and right, are isolationists. In a survey for President Clinton, I found the exact percentage to be upwards of 35, evenly divided between the two parties.
Those America-firsters have suspended their criticism of Bush (at least those on the right) because of the unique circumstances of the Sept. 11 attacks and the global threat that terrorism represents. But it is unwise to tempt them into political alienation.
Idealism that makes no distinction between areas where our national interest lies and those from which it is remote does no good for America. The weariness of the post-Versailles, post-Korea, post-Vietnam eras is never far from the national mood.
Bush will need Americans to stay focused and alert as we face the common danger of terror and work together in far flung corners of the globe to counter it.
He does himself and his cause no service by asking us to invest in conflicts remote from our vital interests and far from our national mission.
Dick Morris is a former consultant to President Clinton, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and other political figures.
It seems to me that the core sentence is Besides, the U.S. Army is not the only force in the world. We should let the African nations and European powers take the lead while we husband our resources to fight in heavy combat or where our presence alone can do the trick. Our brave boys have shown that they can take apart the best armies around, but when they are forced into police work in a civilian environment they lose their high-tech advantage and might as well have targets painted on their backs. Maybe we could bring in the Poles, as they have lots of experience in crowd control but no history of colonialism in Africa.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.